Sovereignty
Sovereignty can generally be defined as supreme authority.[1] Sovereignty entails hierarchy within the state, as well as external autonomy for states.[2] In any state, sovereignty is assigned to the person, body or institution that has the ultimate authority over other people in order to establish a law or change existing laws.[3] In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme legitimate authority over some polity.[4] In international law, sovereignty is the exercise of power by a state. De jure sovereignty refers to the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty refers to the factual ability to do so. This can become an issue of special concern upon the failure of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of concern, and reside within the same organization.
For other uses, see Sovereignty (disambiguation).
The concept of sovereignty has had multiple conflicting components, varying definitions, and diverse and inconsistent applications throughout history.[8][9][10][11] The current notion of state sovereignty contains four aspects: territory, population, authority and recognition.[10] According to Stephen D. Krasner, the term could also be understood in four different ways:
Often, these four aspects all appear together, but this is not necessarily the case – they are not affected by one another, and there are historical examples of states that were non-sovereign in one aspect while at the same time being sovereign in another of these aspects.[8] According to Immanuel Wallerstein, another fundamental feature of sovereignty is that it is a claim that must be recognized if it is to have any meaning:
There are two additional components of sovereignty that should be discussed, empirical sovereignty and juridical sovereignty.[13] Empirical sovereignty deals with the legitimacy of who is in control of a state and the legitimacy of how they exercise their power.[13] Tilly references an example where nobles in parts of Europe were allowed to engage in private rights and Ustages, a constitution by Catalonia recognized that right which demonstrates empirical sovereignty.[14] As David Samuel points out, this is an important aspect of a state because there has to be a designated individual or group of individuals that are acting on behalf of the people of the state.[15] Juridical sovereignty emphasizes the importance of other states recognizing the rights of a state to exercise their control freely with little interference.[13] For example, Jackson and Rosberg explain how the sovereignty and survival of African states were more largely influenced by legal recognition rather than material aid.[16] Douglass North identifies that institutions want structure and these two forms of sovereignty can be a method for developing structure.[17]
For a while, the United Nations highly valued juridical sovereignty and attempted to reinforce its principle often.[13] More recently, the United Nations is shifting away and focusing on establishing empirical sovereignty.[13] Michael Barnett notes that this is largely due to the effects of the post Cold War era because the United Nations believed that to have peaceful relations states should establish peace within their territory.[13] As a matter of fact, theorists found that during the post Cold War era many people focused on how stronger internal structures promote inter-state peace.[18] For instance, Zaum argues that many weak and impoverished countries that were affected by the Cold War were given assistance to develop their lacking sovereignty through this sub-concept of "empirical statehood".[19]
A number of modes for acquisition of sovereignty are presently or have historically been recognized in international law as lawful methods by which a state may acquire sovereignty over external territory. The classification of these modes originally derived from Roman property law and from the 15th and 16th century with the development of international law. The modes are:[68]
Justifications[edit]
There exist vastly differing views on the moral basis of sovereignty. A fundamental polarity is between theories which assert that sovereignty is vested directly in the sovereigns by divine or natural right, and theories which assert it originates from the people. In the latter case there is a further division into those which assert that the people effectively transfer their sovereignty to the sovereign (Hobbes), and those which assert that the people retain their sovereignty (Rousseau).[69]
During the brief period of absolute monarchies in Europe, the divine right of kings was an important competing justification for the exercise of sovereignty. The Mandate of Heaven had similar implications in China for the justification of the Emperor's rule, though it was largely replaced with discussions of Western-style sovereignty by the late 19th century.[70]
A republic is a form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain sovereignty over the government and where offices of state are not granted through heritage.[71][72] A common modern definition of a republic is a government having a head of state who is not a monarch.[73][74]
Democracy is based on the concept of popular sovereignty. In a direct democracy the public plays an active role in shaping and deciding policy. Representative democracy permits a transfer of the exercise of sovereignty from the people to a legislative body or an executive (or to some combination of the legislature, executive and Judiciary). Many representative democracies provide limited direct democracy through referendum, initiative, and recall.
Parliamentary sovereignty refers to a representative democracy where the parliament is ultimately sovereign, rather than the executive power or the judiciary.
According to Matteo Laruffa "sovereignty resides in every public action and policy as the exercise of executive powers by institutions open to the participation of citizens to the decision-making processes"[76]
